Is Jim Cameron talking out of both sides of his mouth on 3-D conversions?

Is Jim Cameron for or against converting 2-D films into 3-D? Or has he done a serious flip-flop on the issue now that Hollywood is in the midst of a 3-D blitzkrieg?

I thought Cameron was on my side on the 3-D conversion issue. In short, that means that people who start taking films they've shot in 2-D and then -- salivating at the astounding grosses that "Avatar" and "Alice in Wonderland" have racked up in their 3-D runs -- decide to quickly convert them into 3-D are people trying to hustle their audience and make a quick buck. Actually, make that a lot of quick bucks. That's exactly what Warner Bros. is doing right now, in the wake of "Avatar's" box-office success, with the studio working overtime to convert "Clash of the Titans" into 3-D, long after the film was already shot using conventional 2-D equipment.

In a recent interview, Cameron had bashed the quickie conversion process, saying it was "typical of Hollywood getting it wrong." The filmmaker, speaking of his work with "Avatar," said, "We do a film that is natively authored in 3-D, shot in 3-D, and so they assume from the success of that they can just turn movies into 3-D in 8 weeks ... throw a switch and that's gonna work somehow." Speaking directly about quickie studio conversions like "Clash of the Titans," Cameron added: "It's just not the way to do it. If you want to make a movie in 3-D, make the movie in 3-D."

But in Hollywood, money talks. The recent 3-D grosses have been so astounding that everyone is pushing the 3-D button. Not only are a host of sequels getting the 3-D treatment, like "Happy Feet 2" and "Friday the 13th Part 2," but Paramount is even moving ahead with a 3-D version of "Jackass." I guess it was an obvious question -- would Cameron dip back into his library and start his own 3-D conversions? And, surprisingly, considering his tough words, the answer is yes. As he told USA Today, "We're targeting the spring of 2012 for the release [of a 3-D version of 'Titanic'], which is the 100-year anniversary of the sailing of the ship."

What do you think? Is "Titanic" the kind of film you'd want to see converted to 3-D? Or is taking a masterwork and reworking it with new technology the equivalent of colorizing "Casablanca"? Should "Titanic" stand on its own as a classic of its kind -- or is any movie fair game? I'd love to hear your thoughts. But I think that if Cameron is going to beef about other people doing 3-D conversions, he shouldn't be so eager to do it himself just because he thinks he'll do it so much better than the crass, quick-buck artists who run movie studios.

Photo: James Cameron. Credit: Lawrence K. Ho / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[odvan]

Can't you read? He said proper conversation requires from 6 month to an year work. Not 8 weeks. And he also added this is would be 2.8D, not 3D. And he has already shown promo of Titanic in 3D on Comic Con last summer.

Jeez what's wrong with you guys? That's old news.

[joshua]

james cameron..... not "jim"

[Paleta Fresca]

Hopefully, they'll put some money into reworking their computer graphics, which although terrific at the time, look a bit dated now.

[Kris]

Cameron is not criticizing converting to 2d to 2d. When he refers to Hollywood getting it wrong, he is referring to the last minute decision to rush a conversion simply to capitalize on the 3d boom. As he says, you don't want studios to have a 3d button and to blindly convert things to 3d. It needs to be an artist driven process since the director has to make important decision regarding stereo-space which takes considerably longer than 8 weeks. Additionally, if you saturate the marketplace with bad 3d it will confuse people who might not be aware that it's the result of a bad conversion. This will directly hinder the growth and expansion of 3d. Simply put, there needs to be a quality standard for 3d so I completely agree with Cameron on the issue. That is why I am pleased Paramount is not rushing a 3d conversion of Iron Man 2, which I feel would be detrimental to the quality of the film. Who knows, maybe Iron Man 2 will be the last of the great non-3d blockbusters.

[T.V.]

As someone who is a pioneer in 3D cinema, James Cameron has shown everyone else how it is done: his way. Of course, he's jumping on the 3D conversion bandwagon but what's wrong with the 3D conversion bandwagon? There will be good 3D and bad 3D but there will be 3D, make no mistake about it. Hopefully, he will expose the crass, quick buck artists for who they are by doing the conversion with much more skill than they. At the moment, there seems to be all kinds of ways to make stereo cinema (or cinema stereo?) and Cameron's right, the best way is to shoot with a 3D camera, several of which he invented in the course of making Avatar. It's a complex subject which can't be simplified by being "for or against." For some, 3D cinema done properly is completely awesome. For most, the bad 3D is gonna be a huge headache. We shall see...

[Eric Jones]

Titanic is a "masterwork"? Get real! That was some of the worst acting in recent decades right next to Avatar. Cardboard cookie cut outs don't look or act any better in 3D..... just send all the crap to DVD already and be done with it all....

[Kevin]

If 3D is better than 2D, books must really suck. I don't need movies in 3D. I live in 3D. I go to movies to get away from my crappy 3D life.

[Kate]

Ultimately, I think he is still against the conversion after shooting a movie. He has been quoted saying (regarding the Titanic re-release) that "it will never be as good as if you shot it in 3D", and called it "more like 2.8D".

He has also said that if a movie is to be turned into 3D, the decision should come from the filmmaker and not as an order from the studio. If a movie is to be converted, then it should be converted by the filmmaker who made it.

So, yes he's making the Titanic conversion, but that doesn't contradict with his views that "real" 3D movies are filmed, not converted.

[Milo]

You could make Titanic in 4d and I still would not watch it...

[Holly]

It is Jim, just ask his friends.